Letters to the Editor

Feb. 15, 2001

'Lariat' editors wrong in making Napster story more prominent than men's basketball story

In my four years at Baylor, like many other students, I have read my fair share of Lariats. Therefore, I have seen The Lariat's fair share of errors on a daily basis. However, I have never seen anything so amazing as I did when I picked up a copy on Tuesday morning and found an article on Napster taking a more prominent place than our men's basketball team's huge upset of No. 6 Kansas.

I realize that our athletic teams aren't always the most successful, but when our unranked men's basketball team beats the No. 6 ranked team in the nation, it is a big deal! I use Napster, and I'm glad to be informed. I am also a lifelong Baylor sports fan, and I can't believe that The Lariat made our third win over a top-10 ranked team ever appear to be less important than the decision to make Napster users pay for its services. This win means a lot for not only our men's basketball program, but our student body, as well. I just think it should have been publicized as such.

Matt Broaddus

Church Music '01

Within Cody McQueen's letter to the editor in Tuesday's Lariat, he makes a statement suggesting that the American people largely support George W. Bush's plan for oil drilling in Alaska, and his only proof is that Bush was elected president. However, the recent election was barely a representation of who the people desired as president, and was a much poorer example of their views on specific issues.

Furthermore, the very idea that keeping a clean environment has become a partisan debate suggests a much deeper problem than this issue itself. It is merely a tedious example of how a common good, and what should be pure intentions, are easily corrupted by partisan politics.

He also criticizes Clint Cox for exercising too strong an opinion on the matter. Well, important issues create strong opinions, and some cases call for strong words. The last thing the American public needs to do is pamper their politicians. He further states that journalists should 'stick to the facts,' but ethical issues are seldom completely factual. The sad fact is that most politicians care only about one issue: getting elected.

Unfortunately, the more important social responsibilities rest on the shoulders of a public who rarely has the power to make a difference. However, this in no way should discourage us from trying with passion to do just that.

Jared Gallow

Journalism '02

In a letter to the editor Tuesday, Cody McQueen made the following statement: 'I believe that most Americans feel the same way I do; otherwise, Bush and Republicans in Congress would not have been elected.' The last time I checked, the word 'most' implied a clear majority of a given population.

Maybe I watched the wrong CNN, but I was under the impression that 'most' Americans did not vote for Bush. I didn't see a heavy majority decision for any candidate. In fact, it looked to me like more Americans voted for Gore than for Bush. Maybe I misunderstood. Could someone please clear this up?

OK, that was a facetious statement. This is not: There is no such thing as safe drilling. Any time you bring in heavy machinery to dig a giant hole in the ground, you're going to tear up a lot of land and scare away a lot of animals. To say that might disrupt the ecosystem a little bit is a vast understatement. It's true that the tankers hauling oil from overseas aren't safe either, but at least they aren't cruising through the middle of a wildlife preserve. 'Preserve' and 'drilling huge holes in the ground, scaring animals and disrupting ecosystems' are two concepts that do not mesh well.

I know many people are carefully avoiding this fact, but someday there is going to be no more oil in that preserve. Then what? We can buy more foreign oil. And when that runs out? Just because it won't happen in our lifetime doesn't mean that it isn't our problem. If Americans truly want to be economically independent, alternative energy sources need to be explored. The true problem is not the cost of fossil fuels, but their scarcity. Supply and demand, a concept from Economics 101, is at issue here. Right now, we are almost wholly reliant upon a bunch of dead dinosaurs who only had walnut-sized brains in the first place. Is that really the best that we can do, or are we just not opening our minds and trying hard enough?